This Ph.D. seminar is an introduction to theories and research
pertaining to individuals in organizations. The primary focus
of the course is to understand the theories that we use to explain
individual behavior in organizations and to learn to develop theoretically
based research propositions. Topics will include

A
general introduction
Being a scholar and writing papers
Emotions and Values
Cognitions, Motivation, and Altruism
Individual Decision Making
Justice and Fairness
Trust and Reciprocity
Bargaining and Negotiation
Conflict and Power
Other Special Topics

This
is only a limited list. Due to time constraints, we will not cover
a variety of other important topics (e.g., diversity, gender,
self esteem, incentives, tasks, etc.). We will, however, incorporate
many discussions about the academic profession throughout the
course.

For
each class, you should read the readings that are printed in 12-point
font. (Other related readings, not required, are listed in 10-point
font.) Prior to class, after the first, each of you will help
to generate the discussion questions for that class. Each of you
will also lead or co lead discussion for one or two topics (depending
on the size of the class). You will have the opportunity to choose
your favorite topics for the days you lead discussion (although
some flexibility may be necessary for the more popular topics).
Everyone will contribute actively to the discussion. The discussion
leader(s) will generate at least three discussion questions for
their topics, emailed to me by Monday at 9, the morning of our
class meetings. Everyone else in the class will email at least
one open ended discussion question per topic, again by Monday
at 9. I will reproduce all the questions and distribute them to
the discussion leader as soon as possible and to everyone else
at the beginning of each class.

Student Evaluations:

1.
Our discussions will assume that everyone is familiar with the
readings for that day so that you can be prepared to discuss them.
Readings in 12-point font will be covered in class discussion.
The discussion leaders will summarize the readings briefly at
the beginning of each class to refresh everyone's memories. They
may also report on and introduce material from other recent readings
throughout our discussion. Each class will explore what we know
and what we don't know about the day's topic. We'll pursue what
we'd like to know and how we would go about discovering it. We
will generate a variety of questions and, more importantly, we
will all have a chance to outline our answers to these questions
(even if they aren't yet documented). More particularly, we will
try to outline actual research projects that might eliminate alternative
explanations, assess and potentially validate the underlying assumptions
of a model, and identify its boundary conditions, causally if
possible.

2.
Written assignments will include two post hoc outlines, two short
idea papers, and one long, research-type paper that you will submit
for a first review and then revise-and-resubmit on the basis of
my comments and those of your reviewers. All of these must be
written on your own.

The
post hoc outlines are exercises that will allow you to see the
underlying structure of some of the articles we will be reading.
A post hoc outline outlines a paper after it has been completed,
rather than prior to its original writing. You will use this technique
for your longer paper in the class, as well. I highly recommend
that you use it for all of your papers. We will use it at the
start of the course to help give you a feel for writing research
papers. Here's how it works:

How
to do it:
1. Describe the main point of each paragraph, in a phrase or short
sentence, on one line.
2. Record these main points in sequence
3. Single space them and, using the largest font you can, print
them on a single page

When
it's your own paper, you will use your post hoc outline to streamline
your revisions, by following these steps:
1. Make sure each paragraph has only a single point
2. Take out repetitive paragraphs
3. Organize the flow so that each paragraph moves smoothly into
the next. (I usually do this with a series of arrows.)
4. Try to identify missing pieces in the puzzle and outline what
those should look like
5. Then reconstruct the post hoc outline to be as close to optimal
as possible
6. Check the conclusion sections and see whether they cover all
the points you raised in the introduction
7. It's important to retain the first version, with all it's editing
marks, so that you can easily go back to the paper and make the
changes you've indicated
8. Moving paragraphs around typically means that you will need
to add some transitional statements that weren't in the original
version

What
it accomplishes
" Resolves organizational problems and reduces redundancy
" Insures that your discussion and conclusion sections relate
directly to the issues you raised in the introduction

For
our purposes, you should choose two empirical research papers
that we have read that you really like. Do a post hoc outline
on each of them. In doing so, you need only follow the steps for
How to Do it. Hopefully this will indicate that this is a well-organized
paper that does not need any of the steps that you will need when
you revise your own papers. If it could benefit from some changes,
as is true of most papers, you should summarize briefly what improvements
would help. In other words, you should comment on how well it's
been organized and what the authors might have done to improve
the flow of their paper. You should turn in one of these assignments
on October 13th and the other on October 27th.

The
short idea papers (2-3 pages) should use one or more of the ideas
that have surfaced in the papers we've been reading. You can propose
a new, competing hypothesis or one that is more interesting than
anything previous authors have thought of. The paper should lay
out the background of the area briefly and then get into the new
idea. Please try to support the idea as logically as you can.
These papers are due on October 20th and November 3rd. Each of
these papers should propose a testable causal hypothesis. Each
paper should be different.

The
initial submission of your longer paper is due November 24th,
our ninth class. This paper may be an expansion of either of the
short papers or something new. This paper should propose a model
or set of hypotheses. It should look like the first half of a
journal article and include:

"
Introduction: What is the research question? Why is it important?
What prior research has been done? What questions remain unanswered?
" Theory, model, and hypotheses: What are the independent
and dependent variables? What relationships do you expect? Why?
" Methods: How would you collect data to test your hypotheses?
What would you use to manipulate your factors and/or what measures
would you use to operationalize your constructs? What statistics
would you use to test your hypotheses? If the data confirmed your
hypotheses what would the results of the statistical tests look
like?

Prior
to submitting your paper, you should give it to a couple of your
colleagues and ask them for comments. Then you should revise your
paper on the basis of their comments. If you send the first readable
version of one of your papers to a journal, its chances of getting
a revise-and-resubmit decision will be extremely low. In fact,
editors are often angry and disappointed when they read papers
that have obviously not been looked at by others first. Thus,
this is one of those activities that will help make you a professional
in the field: developing a set of colleagues who can comment critically
on your work is one of the many keys to success in our profession.
When you have gotten comments from your colleagues and revised
your paper in line with their suggestions, you should submit your
paper with a cover letter as if you were submitting it to a journal.
In fact, you should specify the journal you are submitting your
"article" to and you should submit 3 copies. I will
act as the editor. I will send the other 2 copies out for review.
You and your classmates will review each others' papers, anonymously.
(If I can recruit some of the older students to also review your
papers, quickly, I will.) I understand that, due to many possibilities
for previous exposure, you may well know whose papers you are
reviewing. But we will continue to act as if anonymous reviewers
are reviewing them and we will not reveal the identity of the
reviewers or of the authors. Thus, your paper should have a title
page that includes your name; it should also include an abstract
page that includes the title but does not include your name. Reviewers
will not receive the title page.

If
I ask you to review a paper, your review will need to be back
to me on December 1st. I will try to have my own letters to you
shortly thereafter. You will have until December 15th to complete
your revisions and resubmit your paper.

Grading
a) two post hoc outlines 5% each
b) two short papers 10% each
c) participation and presentations in class and paper reviews
20%
d) final paper 50%

In
both class discussions and written assignments, you are invited
and encouraged to bring in other concepts and ideas from other
relevant literatures. If anyone should run across an article of
particular interest, please bring it to our attention so that
we can incorporate it into the readings. We don't have to restrict
ourselves to the readings in the syllabus.

Appendix
I have provided an appendix that includes some of the major books
in OB. They form the backdrop for many of our readings. All of
these books are recommended reading for the serious OB scholar.

Professional
Development
Many of our reading assignments will include one short reading
on professional development, i.e., what it feels like to be an
academic, what it takes to write a good paper, etc. These papers
will always be open for discussion during the week that they are
assigned or whenever these topics surface. They will be listed
with an *.

ONE
FINAL NOTE: please read the readings and be ready for discussion
for our first class meeting prior to September 29th. I will lead
discussion that day. Thanks.

Weick,
Karl E. JKM/SPO Sensemaking in Organizations: Small Structures
with Large
Consequences. (NOTE: JKM/SPO is shorthand for a book I edited
in 1992, The Social Psychology of Organizations: Advances in Theory
and Research.)

Murnighan, J. K. (2002). The delights of history, the thrill of
the present, and hopes for the future: looking at a new millennium
for the field of organizational behavior: observation, reflections,
and anticipation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2002, 13-15.

In
the Supreme Court of the United States: Price Waterhouse v. Ann
B. Hopkins: Amicus curiae brief for the American Psychological
Association. American Psychological Association, American Psychologist.
1991 Vol 46 1061-1070.

Tyler and Degoey JPSP 95 71: 482- Collective restraint in social
dilemmas: procedural justice and social identification effects
on support for authorities

Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why
the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological
dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70(5), 913-930.

Thank
you all for reviewing our 1st years' papers! Many of your reviews
were simply outstanding and were tremendously constructive. I
am very appreciative.

In
this note, I have included a copy of my decision letter and a
copy of any other reviews that I received for the paper you reviewed.
This way you can see what other people said about the same work
that you read. In some cases, reviewers only added notes to the
manuscript itself. In most of those cases, I do not have copies
for you to see.

I
hope you have found the process instructive. I have certainly
benefited from your assistance.

FOR
THE 1ST YEARS, WHEN YOU RESUBMIT, PLEASE INCLUDE MY MARKED-UP
COPY OF THE FIRST VERSION OF YOUR PAPER. (I currently don't have
a copy and may want to refer back to it as I read your final submission.)

For
EVERYONE: I would like to invite you to a pizza lunch at noon
on our last day of class. Amazingly enough, this is next Tuesday,
November 30. Please let me know your preferences below so that
I can make the right kind of pizza order and bring the right beverages.
Also, could someone volunteer to get paper plates, napkins, and
cups - if the dept does not have them available? I'd appreciate
that.

I
look forward to this as a celebration of three fine cohorts of
Ph.D. students. (Yes, I will invite the third years, too.) I've
had the great pleasure of working with all of you in one course
or another, and this will be a simple way for me to say THANK
YOU to all of you for all your contributions to our joint efforts.
You have been one marvelous group after another after another.
(Note: this is not to say that previous students haven't been
good. I just haven't had the good fortune of having them in class.)

As
you may know, I'm teaching the groups course again this year.
I've asked the students to write a paper in the class and have
promised them blind reviews. Would you be willing to write one?
Quickly? I'd appreciate it very much.

The
guidelines for the paper, from the syllabus, were:

This
paper should propose a model or set of hypotheses testing group-related
issues. It should look like the first half of a journal article
and include:

"
Introduction: What is the research question? Why is it important?
What prior research has been done? What questions remain unanswered?
" Theory, model, and hypotheses: What are the independent
and dependent variables? What relationships do you expect? Why?
" Methods: How would you collect data to test your hypotheses?
What would you use to manipulate your factors and/or what measures
would you use to operationalize your constructs? What statistics
would you use to test your hypotheses? If the data confirmed your
hypotheses what would the results of the statistical tests look
like?

If
you could do a review, and have it back to me by November 22 at
noon, I would be forever appreciative. (Sooner would be even better.)
If your schedule does not allow for you to do this, I understand.
But if so, please get the paper back to me right away.

Some
guidelines to consider if you do your review:

1.
It should be anonymous. (Even if you know the identity of the
author, it is important to preserve your anonymity in this process,
so try to do that as much as you can.

2.
As you put comments in the margins (perfectly appropriate, especially
if they are intelligible) or type up a set of comments, it is
critical that you do your best to present constructive criticism,
with the emphasis on the word "constructive." The best
way to do this, I think, is to imagine that the author of this
paper is your very best friend and you want him/her to be able
to write a revision that will be published by his/her preferred
journal and win a big award after it comes out.

Thank
you for your assistance. I look forward to seeing your comments.